Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32660303›Full record

ArticleJDR clinical and translational research2021

Interspecies Comparison of Alveolar Bone Biology, Part I: Morphology and Physiology of Pristine Bone.

I Pilawski, U S Tulu, P Ticha, P Schüpbach, H Traxler, Q Xu, J Pan, B R Coyac, X Yuan, Y Tian and 8 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in JDR clinical and translational research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Peri-implant bone regeneration in pigs.International journal of implant dentistry · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

I PilawskiDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
U S TuluDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
P TichaDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1959-8618
P SchüpbachSchupbach Ltd, Service and Research Laboratory, Thalwil, Switzerland.
H TraxlerCenter of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Division of Anatomy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Q XuDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
J PanDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
B R CoyacDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3103-3246
X YuanDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8063-9431
Y TianDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Y LiuDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
J ChenDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Y ErdoganDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
M AriokaDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
M ArmaroNobel Biocare Services AG, Zürich-Flughafen, Switzerland.
M WuDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7995-7256
J B BrunskiDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
J A HelmsDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0463-396X
Stanford University · USKyushu University · JPMedical University of Vienna · AT

Funding

Mechanobiology at Healing Bone-Implant InterfacesR01DE024000 · NIDCR · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI BRUNSKI, JOHN BEYER, HELMS, JILL A · 2014 to 2018
$3.4M
NIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE024000
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFew interspecies comparisons of alveolar bone have been documented, and this knowledge gap raises questions about which animal models most accurately represent human dental conditions or responses to surgical interventions.

objectivesThe objective of this study was to employ state-of-the-art quantitative metrics to directly assess and compare the structural and functional characteristics of alveolar bone among humans, mini pigs, rats, and mice.

methodsThe same anatomic location (i.e., the posterior maxillae) was analyzed in all species via micro-computed tomographic imaging, followed by quantitative analyses, coupled with histology and immunohistochemistry. Bone remodeling was evaluated with alkaline phosphatase activity and tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase staining to identify osteoblast and osteoclast activities. In vivo fluorochrome labeling was used as a means to assess mineral apposition rates.

resultsCollectively, these analyses demonstrated that bone volume differed among the species, while bone mineral density was equal. All species showed a similar density of alveolar osteocytes, with a highly conserved pattern of collagen organization. Collagen maturation was equal among mouse, rat, and mini pig. Bone remodeling was a shared feature among the species, with morphologically indistinguishable hemiosteonal appearances, osteocytic perilacunar remodeling, and similar mineral apposition rates in alveolar bone.

conclusionsOur analyses demonstrated equivalencies among the 4 species in a plurality of the biological features of alveolar bone. Despite contradictory results from older studies, we found no evidence for the superiority of pig models over rodent models in representing human bone biology. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT: Animal models are extensively used to evaluate bone tissue engineering strategies, yet there are few state-of-the-art studies that rigorously compare and quantify the factors influencing selection of a given animal model. Consequently, there is an urgent need to assess preclinical animal models for their predictive value to dental research. Our article addresses this knowledge gap and, in doing so, provides a foundation for more effective standardization among animal models commonly used in dentistry.

Indexed as

Bone RemodelingOsteoclastsAnimalsBiologyHumansMiceRatsSwineSwine, MiniatureTartrate-Resistant Acid PhosphataseTartrate-Resistant Acid Phosphataseanimal modelsbone lossdental implant(s)hydroxyapatitemicro–computed tomographyremodeling/regeneration

Identifiers

PMID32660303
PMCPMC8209842
OpenAlexW3042662974

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.